Allowed

Murugan.v v. the Regional Transport Officer

Madras HC30 Apr 2021WP(MD)/9109/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a filing for return of a seized driving licence, this Court quashed the police action of impounding the licence prior to a specific order under the Motor Vehicles Act, directing the Regional Transport Officer to return the document forthwith.

What did the court decide?

Direction issued to the first respondent, Regional Transport Officer, to return the original driving licence to the petitioner forthwith.

Murugan.v Vs the Regional Transport Officer — Consumer Protection | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

W.P(MD)No.9109 of 2021

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 30.04.2021

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE J.NISHA BANU W.P(MD)No.9109 of 2021 and W.M.P(MD)No.6864 of 2021

¶6

V.Murugan ... Petitioner

¶7

Vs.

¶8

1.The Regional Transport Officer, Transport Department, Pudukottai.

¶9

2.Inspector of Police, Ganesh Nagar Police Station, Pudukottai. (Crime No.190 of 2021) ... Respondents

¶10

PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondents to forthwith return the petitioner's original driving licence bearing DL.No.TN55 19970003229 to him within a stipulated time.

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr.A.Rahul For Respondents : Mrs.J.Padmavathi Devi, Special Government Pleader ******

¶12

ORDER

¶13

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to forthwith return the petitioner's original driving licence bearing DL.No.TN55 19970003229 to him, within a stipulated time.

¶14

2.The brief facts of the case are as follows:

¶15

(i) The petitioner is a Driver in the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Kumbakonam) Limited. On 11.04.2021, while he was driving a bus bearing Registration No.TN 68 N 0790, there was an accident in which, one person died. First Information Report was filed in Crime No.190 of 2021 and a case was registered against the petitioner under Section 304-A I.P.C.

¶16

(ii) It is stated by the petitioner that the original licence was seized by the second respondent police in the Police Station and it was forwarded to the first respondent. Subsequently, on 23.04.2021, the petitioner made a representation to the respondents for return of his original licence. Since the respondents have not returned the licence, the petitioner is before this Court. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶17

1/3

¶18

W.P(MD)No.9109 of 2021

¶19

The learned counsel for the petitioner would vehemently contend that the second respondent has no authority to impound the driving licence even before passing the orders under Section 19(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Insofar as the criminal case is concerned, it has not reached finality and it is in the initial stage. The final report has not also been filed.

¶20

From the submissions made by the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents, it is noted that the original driving licence of the petitioner is now in possession of the first respondent.

¶21

It is settled law that until the licence or any certificate issued by the competent authority is cancelled or suspended or revoked in the manner known to law, it is deemed to be in force. The impounding of licence will come only after passing of the order as per the relevant provisions of the statute, in this case, under Section 19 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

¶22

In similar circumstances, a Division Bench of this Court, in Sethuraman v. Regional Transport Officer reported in 2010 WLR 100 , held that even before passing the order under Section 19 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, if driving licence is impounded, it amounts to pre-determination of the issue and the authority has no jurisdiction to do so.

¶23

I do also respectfully agree with the views of the Division Bench of this Court and in the instant case, the second respondent has no power to impound the driving licence of the petitioner and retain it with him. The petitioner is a driver and he is entitled to use the licence till it is legally cancelled or suspended.

¶24

In such circumstances, a direction is issued to the first respondent – Regional Transport Officer, Transport Department, Pudukottai, to return the original driving licence bearing DL.No.TN55 19970003229 to the petitioner forthwith, on receipt of a copy of this order.

¶25

In fine, this writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶26

Assistant Registrar

¶27

// True Copy //

¶28

/ /2021 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶29

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶30

2/3

¶31

W.P(MD)No.9109 of 2021

¶32

¶33

Note: (i)Issue order copy on 05.05.2021

¶34

(ii) In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned.

¶35

¶36

1.The Regional Transport Officer, Transport Department, Pudukottai.

¶37

2.Inspector of Police, Ganesh Nagar Police Station, Pudukottai.

¶38

+1 CC to M/s.A.RAHUL, Advocate ( SR-18315[F] dated 03/05/2021 )

¶39

W .P(MD)No.9109 of 2021

¶40

30.04.2021

¶41

CN(05.05.2021) 3P 4C

¶42

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶43

3/3

Murugan.v v. the Regional Transport Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Murugan.v v. the Regional Transport Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K. Vijayababu Vs the District Collector

M.Ganesan Vs M.a.Murugesan

Sumal Mathew Vs the Secretary to Govt.

Thiruppathy Vs the Deputy Superintendent of Police

Anitha Raja Bai Vs the District Collector

Anikumar.a Vs the District Collector